162 replies to this topic

[BrandonF]

SuperCar1000, on Dec 25 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

Remember that the previews shots that they released for FSX were fake... Probably these are to... I personnaly don't beleive the pictures. We will know once we will have the products in our hands

What do you mean by fake? The FSX shots were in game. (Except for the DX10 rendering shot) Look at the official FSX website. Compare those shots with FSX. Look similar? These shots that were released for Flight are definitely in game. MS has no reason to show us all fake shots at this point.

[Mohammad]

The screenshots do look slightly better than FSX.

Once again, the emphasis should be on performance more than anything else. Like a few people already said, Microsoft Flight is to FSX as Windows 7 was to Windows Vista. As long as I can run the game smoothly - without addons - and by maximum settings, then I wouldn't mind if visual improvements were only minor and nothing revolutionary.

Having said that, they do look slightly improved, although the clouds are identical to FSX and I would prefer it if the development team spent a bit of their time on making the new game feel at least like a polished version of the predecessor. By polished, I don't only mean performance-wise but also visually.

One thing I really hope they improve on is the atmosphere. I cannot stress how unrealistic the atmosphere in FSX was, even compared to FS9. It was almost always blurry or hazy, even at 30,000 ft above the ground.

[Daube]

Mohammad, on Dec 26 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

One thing I really hope they improve on is the atmosphere. I cannot stress how unrealistic the atmosphere in FSX was, even compared to FS9. It was almost always blurry or hazy, even at 30,000 ft above the ground.

I disagree. The atmosphere in FSX looks extremely realistic, very close to what I can see when I take the plane in real life.
The atmosphere in FS9 was looking terrible, especially when you could clearly distinguish the end of the horrible flat world... On the other hand, this was bringing some kind of medieval feeling to it

[Mohammad]

Oh?

Here's a comparison...



http://commondatasto...nal/8902029.jpg

http://community.web...056731912ptPton

===

1. See how crystal clear the sky looks over the horizon? That's how it's supposed to be in the game, just like real life, unlike the dirty look FSX has.

2. See how colorful it is? Very blue, and that's primarily because the sky gets clearer the higher you go up.

3. Even the land below should show good visibility, unless there are heavy clouds or unless there's a lot of fog or sandstorms at lower altitudes.

4. See the white horizon? In real life, it's a line or a small height. In FSX, the white horizon is too big.

Colors are bland, the sky looks dead at 33,000 ft, etc etc. I don't call that realistic one bit.

Edited by Mohammad, 26 December 2010 - 10:10 AM.

[Daube]

You're simply talking about sky textures.
Have you ever tried alternative sky textures ? REX or freeware ?

[Mohammad]

Well yeah, sky textures, atmosphere, whatever you'd like to call it. I sincerely hope Microsoft get it right. I saw REX, fell in love with it but never opted to pay for a product that isn't going to be used a lot anyway, considering how rubbish FSX performs with any computer I build.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that Microsoft offer something more 'Earth-like' in their next game. If Earth smoked cigarettes, it'll look like FSX.

[Daube]

So your main concern about the new sim is how a bunch of poor textures, that anybody can modify for free, will look like ?
It's like saying: "I hope they provide better default repaints for the default C172"...

Edited by Daube, 26 December 2010 - 10:30 AM.

[pyruvate]

Daube, on Dec 26 2010, 08:58 PM, said:

So your main concern about the new sim is how a bunch of poor textures, that anybody can modify for free, will look like ?
It's like saying: "I hope they provide better default repaints for the default C172"...

The Atmosphere just doesn't look very "Atmosphery".  You don't see the air density if you get what I'm saying.

And one thing I would love is humidity and moisture effects, flying through rainstorms will be so much more fun .
Oh and of course, duststorms

[Mohammad]

Daube, on Dec 26 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

So your main concern about the new sim is how a bunch of poor textures, that anybody can modify for free, will look like ?
It's like saying: "I hope they provide better default repaints for the default C172"...

1. Where did I say it was my main concern?

2. Don't try to make an argument out of this. And if you're not, then I suggest you remove your offensively condescending tone.

I can ask for better things if I want to, and in no way is it to your importance if it was high up my priority list or at the bottom. And it's not like the suggestion wouldn't fall on deaf ears either. Plus there's a big difference between default planes/liveries and the actual globe you fly in. If the actual globe looks like London in the 1960s because of a fundamental incompetence in the sky textures, then the damage is much larger than one default plane.

I shouldn't buy a new game that doesn't look or feel realistic, in hopes that an add-on will make the experience better. It should be satisfyingly good in the first place, by default. I appreciate REX and what timest has done, which begs the question why Microsoft can't make something better now that they're planning to release a 'new' game again.

[Daube]

pyruvate, on Dec 26 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

The Atmosphere just doesn't look very "Atmosphery".  You don't see the air density if you get what I'm saying.

I get it and I agree with you.
Having better atmospheric effects would also allow a better representation of fog (visiblity) layers, for example.

Quote

And one thing I would love is humidity and moisture effects, flying through rainstorms will be so much more fun .

FSX already considers the humidity factor, some addons use this information to update the canopy texture, to force you to activate the defrost/deice/air blowing systems. The default planes do not, though... But we all know how complex the default aircrafts can be, from a system point of view :/

Quote

Oh and of course, duststorms

Would be great !

Mohammad, on Dec 26 2010, 10:50 AM, said:

1. Where did I say it was my main concern?

2. Don't try to make an argument out of this. And if you're not, then I suggest you remove your offensively condescending tone.

Looks like I hurted your feelings... People are getting a bit sensitive nowadays...

Quote

I can ask for better things if I want to, and in no way is it to your importance if it was high up my priority list or at the bottom. And it's not like the suggestion wouldn't fall on deaf ears either. Plus there's a big difference between default planes/liveries and the actual globe you fly in. If the actual globe looks like London in the 1960s because of a fundamental incompetence in the sky textures, then the damage is much larger than one default plane.

It's still just a bunch of textures, which can easilly be replaced, unlike a real functionnality.

Quote

I shouldn't buy a new game that doesn't look or feel realistic, in hopes that an add-on will make the experience better. It should be satisfyingly good in the first place, by default. I appreciate REX and what timest has done, which begs the question why Microsoft can't make something better now that they're planning to release a 'new' game again.

Ask Timest how much time and people they needed to provide REX.
MS has been focusing on the features instead of the content, because their experience with FS9 clearly showed them that the initial content of the sim was often replaced by external addons, no matter what.

[Mohammad]

Daube, on Dec 26 2010, 10:57 AM, said:

Looks like I hurted your feelings... People are getting a bit sensitive nowadays...
It's still just a bunch of textures, which can easilly be replaced, unlike a real functionnality.
Ask Timest how much time and people they needed to provide REX.
MS has been focusing on the features instead of the content, because their experience with FS9 clearly showed them that the initial content of the sim was often replaced by external addons, no matter what.

Since you said anyone can do it, go make a better texture for me to use, free of charge. Otherwise just shut up.

Edited by Mohammad, 26 December 2010 - 11:16 AM.

[Daube]

Mohammad, on Dec 26 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Since you said anyone can do it, go make a better texture for me to use, free of charge. Otherwise just shut up.

Very good, continue like this

[MikeMann]

One of the shots that didn't make it!!



Regards, Mike Mann

[Spam]

Actually now its been mentioned...i hate the way the clouds have no depth perception. the clouds in that real shot LOOK far down and where they should be...everytime i see low clouds like that in the sim they still have that appearance of being too high   its hard to explain but i hope you get the idea...

[pyruvate]

spam3d, on Dec 27 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

Actually now its been mentioned...i hate the way the clouds have no depth perception. the clouds in that real shot LOOK far down and where they should be...everytime i see low clouds like that in the sim they still have that appearance of being too high   its hard to explain but i hope you get the idea...

And light goes perfectly through overcast dense clouds!!  

[BrandonF]

MikeMann, on Dec 26 2010, 10:25 AM, said:

One of the shots that didn't make it!!



Regards, Mike Mann

It's like you are asking for it to end up this way.  

--------------------------------------

Everyone, my comparison shot of FSX and Flight was comparing both sims with no add-ons. My point is that Flight looks better than FSX out of the box. It can hold us off for a few months until companies like Orbx can release add-ons to make it even better.

[MikeMann]

BrandonF, on Dec 26 2010, 11:21 AM, said:

Everyone, my comparison shot of FSX and Flight was comparing both sims with no add-ons. My point is that Flight looks better than FSX out of the box. It can hold us off for a few months until companies like Orbx can release add-ons to make it even better.

Alternatively, use FSX with all the enhancements until Flight has enhancements that make it the better choice.

Regards, Mike Mann

[Montie]

Fingers crossed for volumetric clouds!

[niteye]

I wonder if some of the devs are also hardcore simmers who have things like tons of addons and complex planes, trackIR, yoke, IVAO,..

[jetblast787]

spam3d, on Dec 26 2010, 06:58 PM, said:

Actually now its been mentioned...i hate the way the clouds have no depth perception. the clouds in that real shot LOOK far down and where they should be...everytime i see low clouds like that in the sim they still have that appearance of being too high   its hard to explain but i hope you get the idea...

we still have to remember that this product isnt probably in the alpha stage yet. There may, actually there is still a lot more things to be added to the sim. we just have to wait and just a few sample screenshots of what we should expect is enough to know that there will be a good quality sim at the end. ever since the first examples of FSX came out I knew that it won't be as people expect it due to the cartoonish nature of it compared to fs9